----- Original Message -----
From: "Garret Wilson" <garret@globalmentor.com>
To: <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>; "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 7:18 AM
Subject: Re: typed containers in RDF Schema
> In reality, we're simply trying to say that one can use a single rdf:Seq
or
> a list of alternate rdf:Seqs.
I'd like to get a clarification on something, as I'm coming across a new but
related issue that also has to do with alternative representations of
same-semantic constructs.
Let's say I declare in RDF Schema that the Dublin Core creator property (for
example) can have a range of person:
<rdfs:Property rdf:about="&dc;creator">
<rdfs:range rdf:resource="&person;">
</rdfs:Property>
Let's assume that the resource identified by "urn:x-people:jane-doe" is of
type &person;. The following is surely allowed:
<rdf:Description>
<dc:creator rdf:resource="urn:x-people:jane-doe">
</rdf:Description>
But let's say we want to indicate that Jane Doe was specifically the
annotator of this work. (We already do this in the Open eBook Publication
Structure 1.0.1, using Dublin Core but without using RDF.) I would think we
would *not* want to make a "role" property for the Jane Doe resource, but
instead:
<rdf:Description>
<dc:creator>
<rdf:Description>
<rdf:value rdf:resource="urn:x-people:jane-doe"/>
<oebps:role>annotator</oebps:role>
</rdf:Description>
</dc:creator>
</rdf:Description>
Right? That would correctly reflect the semantics I'm intending, correct?
And the value of dc:creator is a resource of type &person;, right?
The big question: would this comply with the RDF Schema I gave at the first?
Thanks,
Garret